Sarcopenia: Clinical implications in ovarian cancer, diagnosis, etiology, and management.

Sarcopenia, loss of skeletal muscle and function, is a common condition among the elderly and is known to cause adverse health outcomes and increased risk of morbidity and mortality. This progressive and generalized disorder imposes a considerable socioeconomic burden. Sarcopenia is observed commonly in cancer patients. As Asia is one of the fastest aging regions in the world, it is clear that incidences of both sarcopenia and ovarian cancer will increase together in Asian countries. Ovarian cancer patients are vulnerable to develop sarcopenia during the treatment course and progress of disease, and a considerable number of patients with ovarian cancer seems to have physical inactivity and sarcopenia already at the time of diagnosis. Therefore, management of sarcopenia should be conducted together in parallel with ovarian cancer treatment and surveillance. Thus, in this article, we will review the clinical importance of sarcopenia in the aspect of ovarian cancer. Definition of sarcopenia, diagnosis, etiology, and intervention will be also introduced.

Impact of variation in cancer registration practice on observed international cancer survival differences between International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) jurisdictions.

BACKGROUND: International cancer survival comparisons use cancer registration data to report cancer survival, which informs the development of cancer policy and practice. Studies like the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) have a duty to understand how registration differences impact on survival prior to drawing conclusions. METHODS: Key informants reported differences in registration practice for capturing incidence date, death certificate case handling and registration of multiple primary tumours. Sensitivity analyses estimated their impact on one-year survival using baseline and supplementary cancer registration data from England and Sweden. RESULTS: Variations in registration practice accounted for up to a 7.3 percentage point difference between unadjusted (estimates from previous ICBP survival data) and adjusted (estimates recalculated accounting for registration differences) one-year survival, depending on tumour site and jurisdiction. One-year survival estimates for four jurisdictions were affected by adjustment: New South Wales, Norway, Ontario, Sweden. Sweden and Ontario's survival reduced after adjustment, yet they remained the jurisdictions with the highest survival for breast and ovarian cancer respectively. Sweden had the highest unadjusted lung cancer survival of 43.6% which was adjusted to 39.0% leaving Victoria and Manitoba with the highest estimate at 42.7%. For colorectal cancer, Victoria's highest survival of 85.1% remained unchanged after adjustment. CONCLUSION: Population-based cancer survival comparisons can be subject to registration biases that may impact the reported 'survival gap' between populations. Efforts should be made to apply consistent registration practices internationally. In the meantime, survival comparison studies should provide acknowledgement of or adjustment for the registration biases that may affect their conclusions.

Age range for inclusion affects ascertainment by birth defects registers.

BACKGROUND: The South Australian Birth Defects Register (SABDR) has collected the date of diagnosis of notified birth defects since the 2005 birth year cohort. This study aims to document the age at diagnosis for each of the main diagnostic categories of birth defects, to produce a profile of when defects are diagnosed. METHODS: Deidentified data were extracted from the SABDR for birth years 2005 to 2007. Each birth defect was assigned to a mutually exclusive date of diagnosis category (termination/stillbirth; neonatal [birth-28 days]; 1 month-1 year; 1-2 years; 2-3 years; 3-4 years; 4-5 years; unspecified). Each defect was also grouped according to the International Classification of Diseases Ninth edition-British Paediatric Association major diagnostic categories (nervous, cardiovascular, respiratory, gastrointestinal, urogenital, musculoskeletal, chromosomal, metabolic, hematological/immune, other). RESULTS: There were 6419 defects identified in 3676 individuals, and 98.6% of defects had a diagnosis date recorded. Terminations of pregnancy/stillbirths accounted for 20.3% of defects notified, and a further 46.7% of defects were diagnosed within the neonatal period. A total of 81.5% of defects were diagnosed by 1 year of age. An additional 17.2% of defects were diagnosed between the ages of 1 and 5 years. There were wide differences in age at diagnosis between the major diagnostic categories. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the value of birth defect registers collecting information about birth defects from terminations of pregnancy, stillbirths, and live births up to a child's fifth birthday. Reviewing diagnosis date provides insight into the pattern of diagnosis of different birth defects. This provides valuable information to medical specialists and researchers regarding the interpretation of information from birth defect data collections. Birth Defects Research (Part A) 106:761-766, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.